You could use the Apple TV at a second location - say a college going kids dorm room or even locations within the house not reached by the cable wire but reached by WiFi. Many cable companies do charge you per TV...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A&E, History Channel, and Lifetime Channels Added to Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You could use the Apple TV at a second location - say a college going kids dorm room or even locations within the house not reached by the cable wire but reached by WiFi. Many cable companies do charge you per TV...
I was going to write this before I went to lunch.
This is what this is for at the moment.
I used to think it was silly (still do to an extent, especially channels like ABC channel) but I could use this (AppleTV) on my basement TV and not have a DVR/HD box or a digital converter box. This way I can get some channels and "onDemand" type viewing.
And funny, the other week when A&E and the others came out with their updated Apps I thought, why not just have these on the AppleTV.
Right, because we all have smart tv's? For some people like me the Apple TV is great. I'm in the military and bring it and an airport express every time I get sent somewhere, so the more built in apps they add the better. I am pretty content with just Netflix and Hulu, but there's still good content on the new additions.
It's especially great for me right now, because all the channels in Japan I can't understand.
People who blame cable for the issue online watching of a network is not separate do not understand it is not cable really but the Network itself trying to profit more people blame cable being expensive but cable is stuck with bunch of Networks that people want but Network telling the cable company to pay up, yeah cable might be expensive but people want all this Networks or don't as you said "ala carte" that would not make it easier at all it might just make it more expensive because a single channel could cost $10 or more this is why like those Time Warner channels that is for Dodgers are having a hard time getting on other cable companies they want to be on their own instead of a tier NFL Network is another example.
----------
Hopefully Apple finally fixed the issue with Netflix Dolby Surround issue at the same time and the issue with HBO Go authentication issue so finally Charter Communications can access HBO Go for the last 2 years we have been waiting (Charter says it is Apple and HBO for the problem).
I would actually pay some money for a la cart access to some of these channels. Until then, I refuse to pay for cable and use my parent's cable login info to get access. Based on my experience, I would guess that there is a significant population of younger people who do the same thing.
How many people do you think has a Smart TV, 4K or 3D TV? I have a 1080p 4-5 years old with no online access I would love to get a new TV but do you really think everyone is going to get a new every 4 years? This why I miss Tube TV days there was never a worry about new tech stuff added it was simply basic now you feel the need to have the latest.
Some people still have Tube TVs which is sad because there are cheap simple HD TVs available but those with Tube TVs bitch about how their cable no longer provides analog but I ask who really watches in analog anymore? Some people are too cheap and I realized that here too often who complain about all this new channels that can not be accessed without being a cable subscriber.
----------
I am curious at how much cheaper it would be if it was a la cart I am just wondering if having things not in Tiers but choosing your own channel I am pretty sure each channel you want to pay for would be more rather than a package, yes I agree there are too many BS channels on cable I do not watch but really I want to see the price difference that people think would be in a la cart.
Also I am still waiting for internet to be 100% without throttling or capping until yeah lets start blaming at cable.
It doesn't seem to make a difference. Even those with subscriptions still get mostly no content other than clips. History shows lots of shows but only clips for 90% of them.
With other channels like HBO and PBS you get mostly fully shows/episodes with subscriptions. Here is almost a bait and switch event.
I'm glad to see others want AMC. I'd like AMC and TCM. We have the second tier cable option from Charter and all we really watch are the local channels and side channels, AMC, and TCM.
Not to detrail the thread, but I recently switched to uverse from charter and cannot tell you how nice it is to be able to actually use the appleTV HBO Go app. Why it works on the iphone and ipad but not the atv for charter is beyond me!
All fail and crumble to the mightiness that is the Logitech Harmony remotes.
that $100 includes internet as well so you would need to spend way less than $50 a month on a la carte to make it worth it
and Hulu's selection is mostly the last few episodes
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How the al-a-carte dream won't work:
I pay $100/month for 200 channels now. I only watch 10 channels. $100/200 = 50 cents per channel. 10 channels I want times 50 cents = $5/month
How the al-a-carte replacement would work:
10 channels I want times about $16 per month each = $160 per month. Apple gets it's 30% off the top and the rest of the players get about $12/month more than they do now.
In no scenario are the masses going to get $5/month or $10/month television with everything we want to watch. If everyone switched to such a system, the whole thing would crumble. We already have cheaply-produced channels that could support $5 or $10/month for the masses. It's called youtube. That's what the future of television looks like if we somehow get what we think we want. Apple won't take the big hit. Cable/Broadband won't take the hit. Who's left if we get $5/month? The Studios. If the Studios take the entire hit, they won't make the money to keep cranking out the stuff "we" love. Instead, we'll get the very cheaply produced stuff like youtube channels and 24/7 Kardashians.
I pay $100/month for 200 channels now. I only watch 10 channels. $100/200 = 50 cents per channel. 10 channels I want times 50 cents = $5/month
How the al-a-carte replacement would work:
10 channels I want times about $16 per month each = $160 per month. Apple gets it's 30% off the top and the rest of the players get about $12/month more than they do now.
In no scenario are the masses going to get $5/month or $10/month television with everything we want to watch. If everyone switched to such a system, the whole thing would crumble. We already have cheaply-produced channels that could support $5 or $10/month for the masses. It's called youtube. That's what the future of television looks like if we somehow get what we think we want. Apple won't take the big hit. Cable/Broadband won't take the hit. Who's left if we get $5/month? The Studios. If the Studios take the entire hit, they won't make the money to keep cranking out the stuff "we" love. Instead, we'll get the very cheaply produced stuff like youtube channels and 24/7 Kardashians.
That's fine, but I barely use the Sony smart tv apps anyway. Point being, for most people with a cable subscription, there is already more than enough content to watch, so I just struggle to understand the benefit of Apple TV if I have to have a cable subscription anyway to get much out of it.
If it's not saving any of my money from going to Verizon or Comcast, than it just adds more content flexibility to an already overwhelmning menu of content from cable. That said, $99 is a fair price for what it does I suppose. Just doesn't seem like an impressive product to me and never really has. A la carte channel subscriptions are the game changer that we'll probably never see.
But with U-verse you could access HBO Go through ATV right? With Charter it is only through iPhone or iPad with Airplay which is okay but I rather watch directly from ATV sad Charter or Apple does not care.
Yeah the app works on ATV with uverse, but I came from charter so I know the pain.
Would be nice to use these apps but I had to downgrade the OS because 6.1 screwed my ATV's up. Video from my blurays rips were choppy and no DD 5.1 from Netflix. Apple still hasn't addressed this issue as far as I know.
For those who are complaining the point of these apps that require a cable sub, in my case, I have 4 TV's (3 in kids rooms) that I don't have to lease extra cable boxes for at $5-6 a pop. I also don't have to worry about cable runs or wallplate locations. Worth it for me.
For those who are complaining the point of these apps that require a cable sub, in my case, I have 4 TV's (3 in kids rooms) that I don't have to lease extra cable boxes for at $5-6 a pop. I also don't have to worry about cable runs or wallplate locations. Worth it for me.
Wouldn't it make more sense for each channel/app to charge you a sub rate similar to magazines?
TW in NYC charges almost $100 for cable tv and I watch 3 stations.
Would much rather pay direct to those station for a lot less.
Then again- I imagine if that happens- Cable companies will up the internet rate.
They'll get ya one way or another.
TW in NYC charges almost $100 for cable tv and I watch 3 stations.
Would much rather pay direct to those station for a lot less.
Then again- I imagine if that happens- Cable companies will up the internet rate.
They'll get ya one way or another.
most stations are owned by large companies that own lots of stations and refuse to let you pay for only one station. and they don't want to deal with customers directly
Excellent thoughts. However, another variable that has a big effect on Cable pricing is sports. Sports entertainment is extremely expensive and part of the reason your cable bill is so high (even if you don't subscribe to a bunch of ESPN channels) is that you're subsidizing a lot of crap that you don't even watch. I'm not sure how big a variable that is... but it is a factor.
----------
That and the fact that cutting out your cable can save you hundreds of dollars a year. I'm actually saving over $1000/year since I cut the cord. For the few speciality cable shows I can't get on Hulu / Netflix or streaming from a channel's app or website... I buy a season pass on iTunes. And I'm STILL way ahead.
----------
That and the fact that cutting out your cable can save you hundreds of dollars a year. I'm actually saving over $1000/year since I cut the cord. For the few speciality cable shows I can't get on Hulu / Netflix or streaming from a channel's app or website... I buy a season pass on iTunes. And I'm STILL way ahead.
A-bit off topic, but... Anybody know why Amazon Prime is still not on AppleTV?
Currently using IPad to AirPlay Amazon Prime, but kind of a hassle and don't want to use the IPad for other things when it is streaming (e.g. feel like I am going to interrupt the stream if I do)...
Amazon Prime (AirPlay), Netflix, and ITunes Movies are my most used AppleTV apps. Where is the hide button for the cable subscription required apps.
Currently using IPad to AirPlay Amazon Prime, but kind of a hassle and don't want to use the IPad for other things when it is streaming (e.g. feel like I am going to interrupt the stream if I do)...
Amazon Prime (AirPlay), Netflix, and ITunes Movies are my most used AppleTV apps. Where is the hide button for the cable subscription required apps.
Really!? Just like their iPad apps? If that's the case, what's the point! Wow. I don't think Apple should even allow those crappy apps on AppleTV. You need a cable subscription and even THEN you don't get full episodes of everything?! Useless. It's basically just a marketing app to entice you to subscribe to their cable TV channel... as if we're all still living in the past. I'm about as likely to subscribe to cable TV as I am to buy a Sony Walkman (maybe the Dollar store still sells them). And I'm in my 40's! Anyone in their teens / 20's is about as likely to subscribe to cable TV when they move into their own place as they are to get a landline. Ain't gonna happen.